I am bringing this out because I feel that GodSands has brought up a very good argument, and I wish to open it up to public address. I sent him a rather curt welcome back and asked that he used this opportunity to show that he has grown. I shall respond to his reply here.

"Thanks for the welcome back."-You're welcome

"However, I used the top philosophly for the existence of God."-No, you did not. I think it is safe to say that despite what you say you know about Philosophy and Theology, I myself am more well versed in these philosophies than you are.

"You are indeed tough to please."-No, I am not. I'm very easy to please. I'm just hard to fool. Do not masquerade ignorance as profundity.

"You maybe right that at times I do show off. I do not hide that in addmission"-That's not a problem. I like when people show off, it shows confidence and character. What I *don't* like, is when people lie. If you want to proclaim your expertise in Philosophy, that's fine. But everyone on this forum and their mothers can see that you're rather poorly versed in Philosophy. Brag about other things.

"I am not trying to turning this site into anything other than it is."-But you *are* going against the principles of this site. If you are not open to intellectual exchange, why are you justified in being here? Either accept that you have things to learn from others, or leave.

"You are as stubbord as me in all the wrong reasons. I am stubborn because God is unlimited, you are stubborn and do not listen."-You do realize that this statement shows my point exactly, right? When I refuse to accept you/Christ, it is because I find flaws in your arguments, not because I purposely deafen myself to your message. It's not the message I have a problem with, it's the way the messenger speaks. You, however, are the one being stubborn, for the exact reason that you do not listen and do not want to listen.

"Christianity is not a religion, since Christians are followers of Jesus who died and claimed to be God. Budda, Mahamid, and whoever else either desended with out the death of our sins. None but Jesus was prophiced through out the ages. I have done nothing to earn God or eternal life. Religion is where you lay out your path to God, atheism is a religion if anything, a blind religion. With blind faith. You have faith you will find an answer to everything."-In essence, you are saying that Christianity is not a religion because it is the truth. The logical flaw is that you have no way of justifying Christianity as the truth, except with faith. It would then be prudent to note that with faith, either everything or nothing is the truth.

"If by definition God can create, make and do anything what stops God from existing? And if God was really God, wouldn't God just exist? Sound shollow but it has an edge of truth to it. Well looking forwards to your reply. Oh I want logical answers, not just,"Just because you say it does not mean it is true." Yeah sure.""

You are aware that between the two of us, you are the only one who has ever done this sort of evasive maneuver? I have answered this question already in another topic, but seeing as how YOU NEVER LISTEN, I shall answer it again.

1. The definition of a God is something that can do everything.2. Existence is a thing that can be done3. Therefore, God must exist

This is basically in the family of Ontological proofs, much like Anselm's. It is a semantic argument that derives its truth from flawed definitions and playing around with the word "exist".

The flaw in the argument is in step 2. Existence is not an act, or a thing. Existence encompasses the subset of actions. Immanuel Kant:

1. "Necessary judgments will never yield absolute necessity for things and their existence." The definition only applies if the thing exists.

2. "If we include existence in the definition of something, then asserting that it exists is a tautology." From the statement prior, we know that the attributes come after the primary question of "does it exist?". If existence is an attribute that follows, it becomes tautological and logically flawed.

3. "Being is not a predicate. To say that something is or exists is not to say something about a concept, but rather indicates that there is an object that corresponds to the concept." If you were to have a concept of a unicorn (horse with one horn) and you discover one, the concept of a unicorn does not change to become "horse with one horn that exists". The existence is OUTSIDE the concept of the unicorn.

Thus, your argument is a failure. You seek to show that existence is a part of the definition of God, and I have shown through raw logic, why your argument is tautological in nature. You asked for logic, here it is. I did not disprove God, I just disproved you.

I am sick and tired of your "Everything I say is a gem of pure brilliance and it is a revolutionary thought in Philosophy/Theology through the ages" mentality. Everything you have thought of and will think of, has probably been proposed and debunked before. Socrates emphasized the importance of knowing that you know nothing. I suggest you follow in his footsteps for a while.

You have a lot to contribute to the forum, I'm sure you know that. But you also have a lot to learn. Stop putting your ideas up on pedestals, because they are old and unoriginal. Present them with less arrogance, see if they get shot down, improve on them, temper them, train yourself, improve yourself.

: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.

"The existence is OUTSIDE the concept of the unicorn." - What are you on about? The existence is outside the concept opf the unicorn? What existence? The existence of the unicorn? You are making my question very confusing when it is not.

I saw denial in your answering many times. You may as well ignored the question. What you are saying is that, what can stop God from existing is there being no God. But you are shutting off my question. It is like this, "You can not wear shorts to the wedding" says one person "But they are shorts" says another. You can not do that, I might as well not even mentioned my question to you to begin with. You can not face it. You turn around when the question gets tough and come up with excuses. You resemble your thoughts else where, something is making you sound stupid, may I put it blundly.

We are in existence as you are fully aware, so answer my question striaght not twisting it and rejecting it, because there is an answer, and that is NOTHING which can not allow God to not exist. What the heck if that is not the answer then what are the answer to other simple questions like, "1+1"? Are you going to enable that and say 1 and 1 are out side of existence because for what ever reason which I do not understand. You could say I add 1 phone and another phone = 2 phones, these two phones. But there are other phones just like those, and you would have to believe there is, to be 100% correct.

I am looking at this question on a universal scale, like 1+1=2 is universal. God can make, create and do anything, what then allows God not to exist? Nothing would be the answer therefore God exists. Just like a simple maths equation. What is the difference?

And Christians are not religous but they have a relationship with God, unlike Muslims where they believe Alla is just a controlling force.

At 6/11/2009 6:44:25 AM, GodSands wrote:God can make, create and do anything, what then allows God not to exist? Nothing would be the answer therefore God exists.

If you count existence as being a predicate, then by your OWN ARGUMENT, not existing would be one of the things God can do.

Kleptin, I like your Kant, but I think this explains better...

There are three types of "is" - the is of identity, the is of predication, and the is of existence. Examples:

Predication : The unicorn is tall and white.Existence : The coke can is.Identity : Clark Kent is Superman.

Obviously there is a HUGE difference between the is of predication and the is of existence. They are NOT the same thing. Questioning any of these can only be done through an empirical or logical basis. For example, even though unicorns may not exist, we cannot think of a logical reason why, if they were to exist, they could not be white and tall. We CAN think of a logical reason why unicorns couldn't have scales and breathe fire - that wouldn't be a unicorn.

Just the same, questions of existence can be settled by empirical or logical means. If I assert that a coke can is on my desk, but there is not one there, obviously the can does not exist. Note that the combination of "the coke can is" and "on my desk" represents not an is of predication, but a combination of an existence claim and a predicative claim that helps us identify which coke can we are talking about.

If one asserts that God exists, one MUST be prepared to back up the proposition logically, because God is nowhere to be found by any empirical means.

What this means is that if you wish to give a "proof" for God, then the existence of God CANNOT be one of your premises. For example:

is NOT a valid argument (begging the question / circular reasoning). Your conclusion CANNOT be one of your premises, nor can your conclusion be an assumption of any of your premises.

So when you say:

If by definition God can create, make and do anything what stops God from existing? And if God was really God, wouldn't God just exist?

We have the problem of you begging the question because God would have to exist for him to actually create, make, and do anything. And when you assert that this sort of definitional argument translates to an existential claim, you impermissibly break the boundary between predication and existence.

If you hold the definition of "God" to be "a being that can create, make, and do anything," then you MUST also recognize that this says nothing about whether or not this being actually exists.

RECAP:

1) Existence is not an action.2) Predication and existence are very different things.3) You are confusing predication for existence.4) This leads to the circular reasoning in your arguments.5) That's a no-no.6) Come up with new stuff.7) Don't bring this argument up again - it's been completely refuted MANY times.

The existence is outside the concept opf the unicorn? What existence? The existence of the unicorn? You are making my question very confusing when it is not.

This is what Kleptin is saying. The concept or idea of unicorns exist. That doesn't mean unicorns exist. If somebody discovers a unicorn, it is not because the idea of unicorns exist, but because unicorns themselves exist. There is a difference between an idea existing and the actual thing existing.

I saw denial in your answering many times. You may as well ignored the question. What you are saying is that, what can stop God from existing is there being no God. But you are shutting off my question. It is like this, "You can not wear shorts to the wedding" says one person "But they are shorts" says another. You can not do that, I might as well not even mentioned my question to you to begin with. You can not face it. You turn around when the question gets tough and come up with excuses. You resemble your thoughts else where, something is making you sound stupid, may I put it blundly.

We are in existence as you are fully aware, so answer my question striaght not twisting it and rejecting it, because there is an answer, and that is NOTHING which can not allow God to not exist. What the heck if that is not the answer then what are the answer to other simple questions like, "1+1"? Are you going to enable that and say 1 and 1 are out side of existence because for what ever reason which I do not understand. You could say I add 1 phone and another phone = 2 phones, these two phones. But there are other phones just like those, and you would have to believe there is, to be 100% correct.

-There is a difference between God's existence and mathematics. I'll explain Kleptin's argument below in layman's terms (not insulting your intelligence - I had to reread Kleptin's arguments before I got them). We can say 1+1=2 because we have set down the axioms (ground rules) of mathematics. We can put together one phone and another phone, and say we have two phones. There is no logical flaw there, as we have empirically proven 1+1=2 in that scenario.

I am looking at this question on a universal scale, like 1+1=2 is universal. God can make, create and do anything, what then allows God not to exist? Nothing would be the answer therefore God exists. Just like a simple maths equation. What is the difference?

-There is a flaw in your logic here which Tarzan and Kleptin have pointed out. You say "God is omnipotent, there is nothing that can stop God from doing stuff. Therefore, there is nothing that can stop him from existing." The problem is in your assumption "God is omnipotent". You are assuming God exists to prove that God exists. God can only be omnipotent if he exists. If God doesn't exist, he cannot be omnipotent. You cannot use his omnipotence to prove his existence, as he can only be omnipotent if if he first exists. You can't say omnipotent->exist, but you can (with proof) say exist->omnipotent.

-The Flying Spaghetti Monster is often used to illustrate these logical flaws. Let me apply your argument to prove that he exists. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is omnipotent, therefore nothing can prevent him from existing. Therefore, the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists.

And Christians are not religious but they have a relationship with God, unlike Muslims where they believe Alla is just a controlling force.

-First of all, Allah is the same deity as the Christian God and Yahweh. Each of the three religions believes different things about him. Second, what is so wrong with Christianity being a religion? Why is being a religion demeaning? Why can't Muslims have a relationship with Allah?-Also, let me apply your proof to Allah. Allah is omnipotent, therefore nothing can stop him from existing. Allah therefore exists.

"The problem is in your assumption "God is omnipotent". You are assuming God exists to prove that God exists. God can only be omnipotent if he exists. If God doesn't exist, he cannot be omnipotent." -- Then God would not be God, but that still does not say there is no God, it just means this God a false God was lying about being The God. God is all powerful and most curtainlly your words and thoughts will do nothing, there is always that 'what if God exists' in your heads, and all your word crumble because of your own selves.

You have faith that there is no God, because you do not know if God exists but you go against Gods existence, why not be for God's existence for once? Why are agnostics even against God when they are nutrual? It is because God favours the righteous. AND THAT YOU ARE NOT! That you know you are unrighteous and that you hate, so you dismiss God because my clever trickery you might win me over, so you think. And if so you would be reinsured God does not exist. Allowing no worry of just judgment. Like I believe and know God so I can be saved and not end up in hell, you do not believe in God because you do not want to be judged.

If there was no threat of judgment, why would you not say, "Yeah why not I believe in God, it makes no difference anyway." If there truely was no God and that you feel there was no God, why not say that? It would block all my arguments. And I would only say, "Ok good, there is a God then." - "Yes." You reply, "Makes no difference" You think after. Don't care about me because you are not me. And the truth is unknown for now. Why not say that? Because I am with God and you are not, I will never say ignore God in a righteous mind. I will never give up in the spiritual battle against the enermy. And I say for my self, if I was to fall away from God, I am right now and if I fall away I will aways be right. (Spoken by the righteous me as am now, 11th June 09.)

Why not just agree that there is a God and say in you mind, "It makes no difference because there is no God."? Because there is a force, called Satan. God is personal like a friend, you will only come to God through Jesus, all this philosophy is rubbish at the end of the day.

Because of my reasons above, thats why. Its all about the hatred of righteous justification.

At 6/11/2009 3:32:46 PM, GodSands wrote:You have faith that there is no God, because you do not know if God exists but you go against Gods existence,

If they do not believe God exists, then of course they are going against God's existence. Pointless point.

why not be for God's existence for once?

Because they don't see any evidence pointing to His existence. Why don't you be against God's existence for once? Pointless point.

Why are agnostics even against God when they are nutrual?

Agnostics believe that God cannot be proven one way or another. They aren't against, nor are they for, God's existence. Pointless point.

It is because God favours the righteous. AND THAT YOU ARE NOT!

Assumption based on your own opinion, not a fact and not even a critical thought on the matter. Pointless point.

That you know you are unrighteous and that you hate, so you dismiss God because my clever trickery you might win me over, so you think.

What? They're against God because they're unrighteous and they hate - yet you always claim God forgives and opens his arms to everyone, even thought that aren't 'righteous' and 'hate', much like you do. Then, you claim that... well I'm not quite sure what you're claiming. Two pointless points.

And if so you would be reinsured God does not exist. Allowing no worry of just judgment. Like I believe and know God so I can be saved and not end up in hell, you do not believe in God because you do not want to be judged.

This is actually right. People don't want to be judged for actions they deem not to really be the business of anyone else but themselves, ie. sex. But, you mentioning it is pointless. Pointless point.

If there was no threat of judgment, why would you not say, "Yeah why not I believe in God, it makes no difference anyway." If there truely was no God and that you feel there was no God, why not say that?

Because using that fallacy, you waste your life following rigid, oppressive rules and not bothering to live your life to its fullest and the way you wish to live it. If there is no God, why waste your life? Pointless point.

Because I am with God and you are not, I will never say ignore God in a righteous mind. I will never give up in the spiritual battle against the enermy. And I say for my self, if I was to fall away from God, I am right now and if I fall away I will aways be right. (Spoken by the righteous me as am now, 11th June 09.)

"I will always be right". Spoken like a true egoist. Pointless point.

Because of my reasons above, thats why. Its all about the hatred of righteous justification.

Yeah, you're right. People do hate "righteous justification", "righteous justification" being the same thing that gives credence to the burning of women, the slaughter of millions and 9/11. Pointless point.

What? They're against God because they're unrighteous and they hate - yet you always claim God forgives and opens his arms to everyone, even thought that aren't 'righteous' and 'hate', much like you do. Then, you claim that... well I'm not quite sure what you're claiming. Two pointless points.

Through Jesus God forgives, no other way does God allow to to have eternal life. You have no clue.

Because using that fallacy, you waste your life following rigid, oppressive rules and not bothering to live your life to its fullest and the way you wish to live it. If there is no God, why waste your life? Pointless point.

No, why not just say there is a God and live how you want? Why fight against there being a God?

"Yeah, you're right. People do hate "righteous justification", "righteous justification" being the same thing that gives credence to the burning of women, the slaughter of millions and 9/11. Pointless point."

Through Jesus God forgives, no other way does God allow to to have eternal life. You have no clue.

But Jesus is God. God sent the Son down to give us eternal life. God's actions gave us that option. I clearly have a clue - you're the one that missed my point entirely.

Yeah thank you, didn't get the end? What sorry, what pointless like your atheist existence like there is no God?

My 'atheist existence', though I prefer not to have that qualifier as the only thing attached to my existence, has many useful attributes to it. Ask my mother.

Because using that fallacy, you waste your life following rigid, oppressive rules and not bothering to live your life to its fullest and the way you wish to live it. If there is no God, why waste your life? Pointless point.

No, why not just say there is a God and live how you want? Why fight against there being a God?

Because you can't by your own standards. You must follow His rules, you must follow His will, you must do everything He requires of you. Besides, why not fight against the idea of God? Why not have a different opinion from you? Give me one good reason why we can't.

Because it isn't what they believe. Why aren't you against the existence of God from time to time if you're for it? Eh? This is a silly, silly argument.

If they have no veiw on God's existence, in that they simply do not know.

Yes, that is exactly it. That is what agnostics believe. They don't know, and they don't go either way. They don't believe God can be proven to exist or not to exist. They simply don't care.

All those agnostics on debate.org who call them selves agnostics are liars, if they get involed in an debate of God. If they do not care they wouldn't care if they believe or do not believe in God. But they do care. They care that they have neither side.

At 6/11/2009 4:35:32 PM, GodSands wrote:All those agnostics on debate.org who call them selves agnostics are liars, if they get involed in an debate of God. If they do not care they wouldn't care if they believe or do not believe in God. But they do care. They care that they have neither side.

They are allowed to debate on the subject. They can have freethought, and argue for their viewpoint, which is that no one can really determine the existence of God. It isn't a neutral stance, stop trying to force sides - it isn't Theists vs. Atheists, with Agnostics in the middle. Its Theists vs. Atheists vs. Agnostics vs. whatever else.

My 'atheist existence', though I prefer not to have that qualifier as the only thing attached to my existence, has many useful attributes to it. Ask my mother.

Enter life with nothing, end life with nothing, so a belief of atheistic veiws is pointless. You life may seem to have a point because you enjoy life, but with no God your life is pointless because when you die you will be nothingness, and won't be able to remeber your life, just nothing. Right? No, you are very meaningful as a person, your life is worth so much you were made to life for eternity in paradice.

At 6/11/2009 4:44:08 PM, GodSands wrote:Enter life with nothing, end life with nothing, so a belief of atheistic veiws is pointless. You life may seem to have a point because you enjoy life, but with no God your life is pointless because when you die you will be nothingness, and won't be able to remeber your life, just nothing. Right? No, you are very meaningful as a person, your life is worth so much you were made to life for eternity in paradice.

Because you can't by your own standards. You must follow His rules, you must follow His will, you must do everything He requires of you. Besides, why not fight against the idea of God? Why not have a different opinion from you?

Because you can't by your own standards. You must follow His rules, you must follow His will, you must do everything He requires of you. Besides, why not fight against the idea of God? Why not have a different opinion from you?

So you do believe in God, sounds like it.

One reason - Becuase you and me are eternal. Too much of a risk.

I would rather risk this life that to risk my etneral existence, even you must understand why I think that.

At 6/11/2009 4:51:25 PM, GodSands wrote:So you do believe in God, sounds like it.

I don't.

One reason - Becuase you and me are eternal. Too much of a risk.

Too much of a risk? Why not take that risk? To paraphrase Christopher Hitchens, I would rather go up to God and have him ask me why I did not believe in Him and say, "But God - would you rather I pursued what I believe was true, or believe in you falsely based on the risk of it all?" Essentially, I believe that if God was real, he would prefer honest commitment to dishonest, save-my-butt belief.

I would rather risk this life that to risk my etneral existence, even you must understand why I think that.